Local News
“Make no mistake: on its face, this lawsuit is nothing more than an act of retribution against those who did nothing more than speak to police and testify against her at her criminal trials.”
Accused of framing Karen Read for murder, several witnesses from the sensational case are asking a federal judge to toss Read’s civil rights lawsuit, which they’ve dubbed a “transparent act of revenge” and a “work of conspiratorial fiction.”
In a new filing Friday, Brian and Nicole Albert, Jennifer and Matthew McCabe, and Brian Higgins alleged Read’s lawsuit is an attempt to deflect from her own liability in the January 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe. They further accused Read of retaliating against them because they cooperated with police.
“Make no mistake: on its face, this lawsuit is nothing more than an act of retribution against those who did nothing more than speak to police and testify against her at her criminal trials,” the filing states.
The Alberts, McCabes, and Higgins drank with Read and O’Keefe at a local bar that fateful night, later returning to the Alberts’ home on Fairview Road. They maintain that evidence supports the theory prosecutors laid out during Read’s two criminal trials: That Read drunkenly backed her SUV into O’Keefe while dropping him off at the afterparty, then left him to die in the snow.
Jurors ultimately acquitted Read of murder and manslaughter charges in June, convicting her only of a drunk driving misdemeanor. For her part, Read alleges the named witnesses “concocted a plan” to frame her and that several Massachusetts State Police investigators were in on the purported coverup. Her civil rights lawsuit, originally filed in November, is now pending in federal court.
In their motion to dismiss the complaint, the Alberts, McCabes, and Higgins argued Read’s claims are past the three-year statute of limitations and violate the state’s anti-SLAPP, or Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, law.
If Read’s complaint is not dismissed, it could set “a dangerous precedent for aggrieved criminal defendants to use the civil courts as a means to sue adverse witnesses in the future, potentially encouraging future witnesses not to provide information to police,” the motion argues.
And while Read has filed malicious prosecution claims against the witnesses, they contend they were nothing more than “mere bystanders whom police questioned and who provided truthful answers.”
Read’s complaint also names three current and former State Police investigators: Detective Lt. Brian Tully, Sgt. Yuriy Bukhenik, and ex-Trooper Michael Proctor. All three have claimed qualified immunity, which generally shields police from civil liability for doing their duty.
In his own filing, Bukhenik further alleged Read’s claims represent a “conspiracy theory not rooted in facts or reality.” He also denied allegations that he or Proctor — the lead investigator on the case — planted any evidence.
“It should be noted that [Read’s] narrative contains inconsistencies and defies simple logic — claiming on the one hand that Bukhenik and Proctor had unfettered access to the evidence while on the other hand alleging that they created a complex and convoluted conspiracy to plant evidence at the scene,” Bukhenik’s filing states. “[Read’s] narrative crumbles under the weight of her own storytelling.”
Read the witnesses’ argument for dismissal:
Alberts, McCabes, Higgins motion to dismiss
Sign up for the Today newsletter
Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.
